Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2022 13:48:14 GMT
But whats your deal? 'Covid ain't that bad, let the chips fall where they may'  Two logical fallacies in one: "straw man" + "argument from the extreme" and even topped with figgy's favorite cherry "didn't you see the question mark?  ". Aces! Well done! My deal is that covid wasn't bad enough to justify the cost/benefit of lockdowns, shutdowns and mass vaccination, and masks don't work.
Well once we got past all the histrionics about language it sounds like you'd agree with my assessment |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Corono
Jan 16, 2022 13:49:45 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2022 13:49:45 GMT
The only way that works is if there is a worldwide concerted effort.. and I don't think such a thing is possible anymore. But covid originated in China, and they weren't honest about it for whatever reason, so that hampered the response. The genie was already out of the bottle.. then planes and boats distributed it worldwide. So it was probably too late for a quarantine to have much success. Besides, did they even have a test for it in the early days? Hard to know what you're dealing with without one. oh, ok, I see your idea here is to catch it at the source. Dunno' if that was possible with this one or not. Except, that the preponderance of the circumstantial evidence is that this thing was contrived in a lab, so, the easiest path to dealing with it would have been not to create it in the first place.
By way of digression from there, I'd opine that the CCP and the PLA bear some responsibility for this, but I strongly suspect they were being used.
Glad you stopped when you did... you were only one of two thoughts away from "Fauci done it!" |
|
|
|
Corono
Jan 16, 2022 13:53:13 GMT
Post by ghostofmuttley on Jan 16, 2022 13:53:13 GMT
 Two logical fallacies in one: "straw man" + "argument from the extreme" and even topped with figgy's favorite cherry "didn't you see the question mark? ". Aces! Well done! My deal is that covid wasn't bad enough to justify the cost/benefit of lockdowns, shutdowns and mass vaccination, and masks don't work.
Well once we got past all the histrionics about language it sounds like you'd agree with my assessment |
|
|
|
Corono
Jan 16, 2022 13:53:57 GMT
Post by ghostofmuttley on Jan 16, 2022 13:53:57 GMT
oh, ok, I see your idea here is to catch it at the source. Dunno' if that was possible with this one or not. Except, that the preponderance of the circumstantial evidence is that this thing was contrived in a lab, so, the easiest path to dealing with it would have been not to create it in the first place.
By way of digression from there, I'd opine that the CCP and the PLA bear some responsibility for this, but I strongly suspect they were being used.
Glad you stopped when you did... you were only one of two thoughts away from "Fauci done it!" He's a criminal! Lock him up! Lock him up!  |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Corono
Jan 16, 2022 15:03:53 GMT
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2022 15:03:53 GMT
Stats from UK from beginning of November (approx) to early January.
Percentages are worked out by looking at positive cases, numbers of double jabbed, numbers of unvaccinated, and fatalities (death 'with' covid).
So, according to the calculation, for the over 70s, being double jabbed gives you a 4-5% better chance of surviving covid if you test positive. That's actually not too shabby. I mean, surviving covid is hugely likely no matter what your age, but obviously this age group is most a risk. If I was 80, and someone told me that having the double jab will improve my chances of survival by 5%, I'd have to consider it.
Over 60s is between 2-3%
Over 50s is 0.7%
Under 50 is too small a difference to note.
Obviously we aren't accounting for vaccine injuries here, nor the potential of immune system compromise, nor the issue of long covid. Also, there's still the problem of the ambiguity of the numbers around positive cases, and deaths 'with' covid remains an issue
And also ignoring that early treatment would have helped massively.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Corono
Jan 16, 2022 15:09:54 GMT
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2022 15:09:54 GMT
Muttley's claim was "yer more likely to get Omnichron if yer jabbed", and I don't think the twitter thread answers that. But with 63% of the US fully vaxed it might make sense that the vaxed are spreading it more (only because of them being in greater number). In a perfect pandemic there would be the resolve to quarantine the infected and use contact tracing to re-trace their steps (which also would provide the researchers with more information to evaluate) But we didn't get that... we got a politicized event instead. Quarantine and contact tracing are a high cost. Do you really think that the death rate for healthy people under 65 justifies the benefit? I don't. Might have made sense with some of the faked early estimates of death rates, but not sub .5%. Quarantine is essentially an arrest, and if you want to deprive people of their liberty then you have no choice but to politicize the event. And that's ignoring the long term consequences of quarantining, surveillance etc. The double bind they use is: If cases go up, we're not restricting enough. If cases go down, it means the restrictions are working. I believe it's all part of normalizing restrictions. Changing people's psychology so that if/when restrictions are brought in again...for whatever reason....it seems sensible and normal. A natural part of life. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 16, 2022 16:24:03 GMT
/photo/1
|
|
Inavalan
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,608
|
Post by Inavalan on Jan 16, 2022 19:20:33 GMT
 |
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Jan 17, 2022 12:23:12 GMT
Quarantine and contact tracing are a high cost. Do you really think that the death rate for healthy people under 65 justifies the benefit? I don't. Might have made sense with some of the faked early estimates of death rates, but not sub .5%. Quarantine is essentially an arrest, and if you want to deprive people of their liberty then you have no choice but to politicize the event. And that's ignoring the long term consequences of quarantining, surveillance etc. The double bind they use is: If cases go up, we're not restricting enough. If cases go down, it means the restrictions are working. I believe it's all part of normalizing restrictions. Changing people's psychology so that if/when restrictions are brought in again...for whatever reason....it seems sensible and normal. A natural part of life. Oh that's a good point about the double bind, I hadn't even thought about how that structure emerges here. Not all double-binds are based on a presupposition, but some of the most well-known double-binds are, like "have you stopped beating your wife?". The presupposition here is painfully obvious, that the lockdowns and quarentines work.
It's certainly commonsense that they would. Just like it's commonsense that wearing a mask would decrease the chances of transmitting or catching the virus. But there are many instances where commonsense is wrong, and unscientific. The masks stop big droplets, so if covid was spread mainly by contact they might have some efficacy, but it's not, and the size of droplets the mask doesn't stop is what goes airborne. Anyone who's ever noticed dust in a sunbeam has an experiential reference for the chaotic motion of small particles, that gets magnified by scale, and viral particles are really small. The term of art for it is "Brownian Motion". The obvious problem with lockdowns and quarantine is that they force and concentrate people inside, especially over longer periods of time, where contagion is more likely. So, it's not so simple as our commonsense would lead us to believe.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Corono
Jan 17, 2022 15:49:34 GMT
Post by Andrew on Jan 17, 2022 15:49:34 GMT
And that's ignoring the long term consequences of quarantining, surveillance etc. The double bind they use is: If cases go up, we're not restricting enough. If cases go down, it means the restrictions are working. I believe it's all part of normalizing restrictions. Changing people's psychology so that if/when restrictions are brought in again...for whatever reason....it seems sensible and normal. A natural part of life. Oh that's a good point about the double bind, I hadn't even thought about how that structure emerges here. Not all double-binds are based on a presupposition, but some of the most well-known double-binds are, like "have you stopped beating your wife?". The presupposition here is painfully obvious, that the lockdowns and quarentines work.
It's certainly commonsense that they would. Just like it's commonsense that wearing a mask would decrease the chances of transmitting or catching the virus. But there are many instances where commonsense is wrong, and unscientific. The masks stop big droplets, so if covid was spread mainly by contact they might have some efficacy, but it's not, and the size of droplets the mask doesn't stop is what goes airborne. Anyone who's ever noticed dust in a sunbeam has an experiential reference for the chaotic motion of small particles, that gets magnified by scale, and viral particles are really small. The term of art for it is "Brownian Motion". The obvious problem with lockdowns and quarantine is that they force and concentrate people inside, especially over longer periods of time, where contagion is more likely. So, it's not so simple as our commonsense would lead us to believe.
yes there's been plenty of examples that show that covid doesn't seem to want to follow lockdown rules....the Antarctica cases, fully jabbed cruise ships etc. And I think you made the relevant point, it's not necessarily that people are opposed to lockdowns....if it was ebola, we'd all be locking ourselves down damn hard....it's the issue of proportionate response and a question of benefit/harm. And I would add, that if folks trusted governments/media/corporations, then there'd be considerably less questions raised about the restrictions. But, we had good reason to be mistrustful even before the ludicrous and disproportionate responses we have been seeing. |
|
Two logical fallacies in one: "straw man" + "argument from the extreme" and even topped with figgy's favorite cherry "didn't you see the question mark? 
Two logical fallacies in one: "straw man" + "argument from the extreme" and even topped with figgy's favorite cherry "didn't you see the question mark? 
